Saturday, June 7, 2014

The Vineyard of the Saker: Considering the "what ifs" and "then whats" of a direct Russian intervention in the Donbass

It has been my recurrent effort on this blog to try to explain the likely reasons why Russia has not intervened so far in the war between Banderastan and Novorosiia. I notice that those who see signs of "betrayal" or "sellout" by Putin are long on accusations but very short on specifics. Unlike the excellent article which I recently posted as a "must read", the folks who are busy accusing Putin of betrayal stop at the very short term: send guns, send men, impose a no-fly zone, strike this or that unit, etc. Fine. And then what? It is that "then what?" which our armchair patriots systematically shy away from. Besides "then what?" the other issue which these armchair strategists shy away from is "what if?". What if the Bandera freaks really open up with everything they have, out of spite or out of retaliation, and what if they really flatten Kramatorsk, Slaviansk or an entire neighborhood of Donetsk? What if the dead at this point turn from tens or hundreds into the many thousands? Those who mistakenly believe that the junta forces have already used "massive artillery strikes" should look up the concept "огневой вал" which is often translated as "artillery barrage" which, while not incorrect, does not even begin to convey the meaning that it has in Russian military doctrine. Rather than to give figures, just take a look at these:

My point is this: the Ukrainians have the systems needed to *really* flatten a town and they are trained to do so. So what if they do that? Then what?

Of course, Russia has the means to rapidly destroy the Ukrainian artillery units in the Donbass, but that would mark yet another escalation of the conflict. Then what?

Or what if the US orders Poroshenko to "request" the protection of NATO? And what if NATO does something really dumb like the initial deployment of the 82nd Airborne to Saudi Arabia as part of Desert Shield? Why do I call "Desert Shield" really dumb? Because unbeknown to the American public, the 82nd AB was put into a very dangerous situation: this light infantry force was deployed as a "tripwire" force meaning that if the Iraqis crossed into the KSA they would have to engage the 82nd and that meant attacking the USA. Brilliant? Hardly. The 82nd is a light infantry force which has zero change against the large Iraqi tank formations. The *hope* on the US side was that US airpower would be enough to stop the Iraqis. And it was just that - hope. Years later, I think it was Dick Cheney who was asked by a reporter what would have happened if US airpower would not have been enough to deter Saddam and if the 82nd had been butchered. You know what he replied? "We would have had no other option to to use our nuclear weapons". So finally the truth came out: the White House was ready to take the risk sacrifice the 82nd AB and it was "hoping" that the US would not have to use nukes. I don't know about you, but seeing Imperial leaders "hoping" not to use nukes really scares me.

So what if Obama (whose Administration must have an average IQ lower then George Bush Senior one's by at least 20 points!) puts down a "tripwire" force along the Dniper and what if the Ukrainians organize combat operation or even military strikes from behind this tripwire force? Then what?

How this works. Follow one of the links. Should you decide to buy that item, or any item, I get a small percentage, which helps to maintain this site. Your cost is the same, whether you buy from my link or not. But if the item remains in the cart too long, I don't get a thing.

RT - News

Disclaimer:

The views and/or opinions posted on all the blog posts and in the comment sections are of their respective authors, not necessarily those of No Bread and Circuses For You.

FAIR USE STATEMENT

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

We only post a portion of the article here. We encourage you to click the link at the bottom of each post to read the full story.

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.